Ken Ham would call Kelvin a 'compromiser' if he was alive and held identical views today.

And Coppedge's claims in green are rather dubious. Though he does state "Evolutionists assume Kelvin’s arguments have been dismissed, but what do they do with the even more powerful evidence creationists offer today? They ignore it!" Once they have heard this 'evidence' the first time, yes they ignore it because it is religion not science.

Either way, thanks for the tip - I completely missed noticing the programme.ETA: anyway, the article is just waffle. Kelvin made an honest attempt to estimate the age of the earth, on a scientific basis not by reading the biblical tealeaves. He just happened to miss a major contribution that wasn't known about at the time and his calculations were later corrected by others. Happens all the time in science.